The High Court awarded Thomas Ben Sekoni and his infant daughter one third of their costs in a judicial review case that became moot after the Minister for Justice granted him permission to remain in Ireland.
The ruling concerned costs only. The applicants had obtained leave in July 2015 to seek an order compelling a decision on Sekoni’s application for permission to remain. The Minister granted him permission on a Stamp 4 basis for one year on 7 December 2015, and the parties accepted that this made the proceedings moot. The court did not determine the underlying judicial review application.
Sekoni, a Nigerian national, had applied for permission to remain on humanitarian grounds in November 2013 after his asylum application was refused. His daughter was born in January 2014. The Minister was notified of her birth in August 2014, but the judge noted that the applicants accepted there had been a delay in notifying the Minister.
After the applicants’ solicitor sought a decision in July 2015, the Minister requested further documents, including evidence of the child’s Irish citizenship, residence and dependency on her father. The solicitor sent documents in July and further information in September, including a sworn statement from Sekoni’s partner. The Minister’s decision followed in December.
The applicants argued that the application had been left without a decision for about 20 months and that the Minister had not explained why supporting information was sought so late. The Minister argued that the proceedings were premature because the necessary documents were not provided until September 2015. The Minister sought no costs against the applicants and asked for no order as to costs.
Justice Faherty said the case did not fit neatly into a category where mootness was caused solely by one party or entirely by external events. She noted that the Minister had not explained why further information was not sought earlier, and that the request in July 2015 appeared to have followed the solicitor’s demand for a decision. The court also took account of the applicants’ delay in updating the Minister and the fact that proceedings were issued shortly after their solicitor responded to the document request and invited further queries.
The judge concluded that it was fair and just to award the applicants one third of their costs. The judgment did not decide whether mandamus would have been granted had the judicial review proceeded to a hearing.